BAGBY-L Archives

From:
Subject: [BAGBY] Fwd: {not a subscriber} (no subject)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:14:10 EST

--part1_20.2d4102d.2b0fcdf2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



--part1_20.2d4102d.2b0fcdf2_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <>
Received: from rly-xi01.mx.aol.com (rly-xi01.mail.aol.com [172.20.116.6]) by air-xi05.mail.aol.com (v89.21) with ESMTP id MAILINXI53-1121223822; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:38:22 -0500
Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [207.40.200.39]) by rly-xi01.mx.aol.com (v89.21) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXI15-1121223746; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:37:46 1900
Received: (from )
by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id gAM3bWbl011213
for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:37:32 -0700
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:37:32 -0700
X-From_: Thu Nov 21 20:37:32 2002
Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.16.34])
by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gAM3bWOq011140
for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:37:32 -0700
Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104])
by mail.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gAM3bVkK026573
for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:37:32 -0700
Received: from
by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id e.1c7.1f4898c (3657)
for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:37:22 -0500 (EST)
From:
Message-ID: <>
Old-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:37:21 EST
To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows XP US sub 10500
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
Subject: {not a subscriber} (no subject)
X-Envelope-To: BAGBY-L

To continue my response to comments of She who prefers that I not utter her i
llustrious name --

she says --

"35 years ago. Look it up. Not that we need you to look it up. The George
Bagby being discussed had a pension. He had 2,750 acres worth of pension and
I have two sources for it."

She is confusing bounty land with a pension. A pension was an annuity
granted by the government whereby a fixed sum of money was paid each month to
the veteran or his widow or orphan child in recognition of his military
service. Land is not a pension.

Further, from what has been quoted to us to this point about George it is far
from clear that all or even most of the 2,750 acres owned by George Bagby was
given to him for his war service. The first piece of which we have knowledge
was reportedly granted in 1773, two years before the war started.

I do have a note that George Bagby was granted 287 and a half acres of bounty
land in Washington County, Georgia. (Magazine of American Genealogy pt. 51
page 283). But even that is not a pension.

The distinction is significant because the Rev. War bounty land application
files were largely destroyed in the War of 1812 (when the Brits put our fair
capital to the torch) if not earlier. If your ancestor got Rev. War bounty
land, usually all you can find is the fact that he got the land. There is no
narrative application extant that would supply valuable facts about the
soldier's early life.

However, the more generous pension statutes came after the war of 1812.
Thus, the National Archives has numerous detailed pension applications from
the period 1818-1840. These have been abstracted in a phenomenal, wonderful
work that unfortunately was not available when I commenced my genealogical
researches in 1966.

Moving on to the next question, it was "What is your source that the 1750
date
[for the birth of RIchard Bagby] should be earlier?"

Answer: Richard of King & Queen County was, per Alfred Bagby, a brother of
Col. John Bagby of Louisa County. I posit Col. John's birth year at about
1733, considering that he had a son -- William -- reportedly born in or about
1758, which is supported by his presence on the 1782 tax list of Louisa
County. (If William were born much later he would not have been on that
list). If John Bagby was born circa 1733, it's more likely than not that
this Richard Bagby, his brother, was born closer to 1733 than to 1750.

I said that I "think" Richard came earlier than 1750, not "I know." I can't
prove this one way or another, because of the paucity of surviving records
for King & Queen. However, the younger Richard was, the more likely it would
have been for him to have fought in the war, but I have no record of such.
If, as I suspect, he was closer to 40 when the war broke out than 25, he had
better reasons to stay home than a younger man.

Barry Wood


--part1_20.2d4102d.2b0fcdf2_boundary--

This thread:

• [BAGBY] Fwd: {not a subscriber} (no subject) by